HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Wisconsin's largest LGBT ...

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:22 AM

Wisconsin's largest LGBT group endorses Clinton.

The group said: “In the U.S. Senate, Clinton championed hate crime legislation, fought for federal non-discrimination legislation to protect LGBT Americans in the workplace, and advocated for an end to restrictions that blocked LGBT Americans from adopting children. As Secretary of State, she advanced LGBT rights abroad and enforced stronger anti-discrimination regulations within the State Department, declaring on the global stage that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

FW went on to praise Clinton for having “the most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate.”


http://wisconsingazette.com/2016/03/30/states-largest-lgbt-group-endorses-clinton/

65 replies, 2176 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wisconsin's largest LGBT group endorses Clinton. (Original post)
kstewart33 Mar 2016 OP
Gothmog Mar 2016 #1
cosmicone Mar 2016 #2
CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #3
Post removed Mar 2016 #4
CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #7
forjusticethunders Mar 2016 #58
CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #61
forjusticethunders Apr 2016 #65
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #5
Name removed Mar 2016 #6
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #8
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #11
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #9
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #12
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #13
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #14
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #15
kstewart33 Mar 2016 #26
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #28
BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #48
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #50
BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #53
Onlooker Mar 2016 #23
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #25
Onlooker Mar 2016 #31
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #32
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #35
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #36
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #37
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #38
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #39
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #40
Onlooker Mar 2016 #56
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #62
PyaarRevolution Mar 2016 #60
Onlooker Mar 2016 #63
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #34
BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #55
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #10
ibegurpard Mar 2016 #16
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #17
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #18
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #19
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #20
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #21
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #22
riversedge Mar 2016 #29
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #30
riversedge Mar 2016 #42
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #44
riversedge Mar 2016 #51
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #33
riversedge Mar 2016 #43
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #24
Democrats Ascendant Mar 2016 #27
BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #41
riversedge Mar 2016 #46
BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #49
riversedge Mar 2016 #45
EndElectoral Mar 2016 #47
revbones Mar 2016 #52
obamneycare Mar 2016 #54
PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #57
obamneycare Mar 2016 #59
pantsonfire Mar 2016 #64

Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:43 AM

1. This is another great endorsement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:46 AM

2. Go Hillary!! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:47 AM

3. Cue the "gays aren't real progressives anyway" attempt to throw them under the bus.

 

They'll be in great company though, alongside Elizabeth Warren, Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, Barney Frank, and every major gay rights organization that has also endorsed Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #3)


Response to Post removed (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:41 PM

7. Your hatred of valid arguments shines through in your casual attempt to put words in my mouth.

 

I'm not anti-gay, and there's nothing from my original comment that indicates anything along those lines. You don't like the fact that I'm right that Bernie supporters will throw any progressive organization that doesn't drink the Kool-Aid under the bus.

Way to build alliances and convince people to support your candidate. No wonder he's failing. People like you have been undermining him since Day One. I hope when you look back on Sanders' failed campaign that you acknowledge your part in it. He couldn't have lost it without you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:19 PM

58. "He couldn't have lost it without you"

 

He couldn't have lost it without you.


This is THE story of the primary. Hillary was (and technically still is) beatable, the fact that it's still theoretically possible for her to lose speaks to that. But the fact is people look at the "movement" and see anger, immaturity, tone-deafness entitlement, defensiveness, and a complete lack of grace and humility, not to mention a distinct aura of "amateur hour". I love Bernie's ideas, he's an actual progressive unless Hillary who needs to be pushed to do progressive things, but Hillary is getting more people to support her. Period. That is the reality. Do I like it? No. But that is the reality. I don't think most of this was Sanders, but it turns out that the supporters did matter, and no matter how much it hurts to admit, the BernieBro thing was a real thing, not just a meme (and when one realizes that some of the loudest and most obnoxious Bernie voters were 2008/2012 Ron Paul voters...)

Also another story of the primary is that elections are won and revolutions are made by building solidarity on the streets, not screaming at people on the net. I hope the next progressive candidate learns this. Ideological purity doesn't win elections or make revolutions without an actual grassroots mass movement to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:00 PM

61. I hope voters in the remaining primaries don't let anger overcome reason, I really do.

 

Anger vs anger in November will be terrible for everyone.

I have said from early on that I could be supporting a movement like Sanders', but only if it were directed at Congress where legislation is actually written. POTUS doesn't write laws, and putting one person in that office won't change the Constitution. Instead, I haven't heard one peep from the Sanders movement about Congressional races, except to say that Sanders is too busy running for President to support them. Really? Clinton is raising money for down-ticket candidates all over the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 08:15 AM

65. The issue is less about Bernie

 

And more about the complete lack of organization that the left of this country has. Without Bernie Sanders, what the fuck is there? Just a gaping void. Bernie Sanders has had to cobble all this together, mostly by himself, because there was simply no organized movement for left-wing ideas until he showed up. There was nothing. Nada. Jackshit. And whose fault is that? The fact that Sanders is even still in a position to win at this point (even if it's like an 8% chance right now) is miraculous - but it also speaks to the fact that there is a vast untapped market for progressive ideas but no movement to harness it until now.

The left keeps looking to some messianic political figure to save them and then cries when it predictably doesn't work out. Even when the candidate does half the work for them (and politicians really shouldn't be in the business of building movements by themselves, they should be moved by the movement), it's still the same. Hell, you could probably build a SuperPAC off small donations to identify, promote and fund progressive candidates both as primary challengers against conservative Democrats but in races where Repubs run unopposed. Even if you can't elect a Kshama Sawant in Louisiana or Texas, running politicians like that nationwide changes the narrative, gets the foot in the door, and slowly moves the OW left. But the professional left in this country doesn't have the vision or the drive to get any of this done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:37 PM

5. Fair Wisconsin is a great organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:43 PM

8. "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate"

Clinton's LGBT agenda

FW went on to praise Clinton for having “the most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate.” The group detailed her LGBT agenda, which includes:

Fighting for full federal equality for LGBT Americans. Clinton has said that she would work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, continue President Obama’s LGBT equality executive actions, and support efforts to clarify that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.”

Supporting LGBT youth, parents, and elders. Clinton has vowed to pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act to combat bullying.

Honoring the military service of LGBT people. Clinton said that as commander-in-chief she would upgrade the service records of LGBT veterans dismissed due to their sexual orientation and support efforts to allow transgender personnel to serve openly.

Securing affordable treatment for people living with HIV and AIDS. Clinton would work with governors to extend Medicaid coverage to people living with HIV, cap out-of pocket expenses for people with HIV/AIDS, and expand the utilization of HIV prevention medications, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Protecting and advancing transgender rights. Clinton would direct the federal government to improve its reporting of hate crimes and streamline identity documents that impose barriers on transgender Americans seeking official identification documents.

Promoting human rights of LGBT people around the world. Clinton would continue to ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world. She would increase the U.S. investment in the Global Equality Fund to advance the human rights of LGBT people around the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:48 PM

11. It was their PAC not the group or its members.

The op edited that part out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:46 PM

9. Their PAC endorsed her, not the group. Why did you edit that part out?

Fair Wisconsin PAC today announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton in next week’s Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary.

In a press statement announcing the endorsement, the group’s political action committee called Clinton “a champion for LGBT equality.”


Nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:52 PM

12. PACs are typically the only arm of *any* organization who ever endorse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:54 PM

13. It's disingenuous to say the group endorsed her.

And even more so to ignore her abysmal record on marriage equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:55 PM

14. No, it's really pretty common. And it's the headline of the article in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:56 PM

15. Except the op deliberately left out the first two paragraphs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:29 PM

26. I posted the thread. And just stop it.

I didn't deliberately leave anything out. The only thing that I deliberately did was to post the thread.

Who are you to state as fact something you know nothing about as to a person's motives or thinking.

What's next? That I am a dishonest, lying corporate shill because I post something that you don't like? How Democratic is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:32 PM

28. You skipped the first two paragraphs.

I base my opinion of why that happened on your other ops.

What's next? That I am a dishonest, lying corporate shill because I post something that you don't like? How Democratic is that?


Strawman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:15 PM

48. Not true.

 

the 501(c)(4) arm, which is different from the PAC but can have the same members, can endorse or oppose candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackCoffeeinNYC (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:17 PM

50. *Can*? Sure. Does? That's not typically how they work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:20 PM

53. Yes, it is, especially social justice organizations.

 

c3 does the community educational work and cannot publicly support any legislation, while the c4 actively lobbies for legislation and endorses/opposes candidates.

For what it's worth, I have worked in the LGBTQ non profit world for over 30 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:23 PM

23. Duh! A nonprofit cannot endorse, so the PAC does the endorsement ... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:26 PM

25. So the op misrepresented the truth by omission.

We went over this last night when you did the same thing, remember? Lying by omission fallacy?

Duh indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:42 PM

31. Largest Peace Group Endorses Sanders

 

Just want to show you how wrong you are. The same point you're making could be made about almost any nonprofit that endorses through its political arm. But, perhaps you want to go after Common Dreams for their omission fallacy, too?

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/02/10/largest-peace-group-endorses-sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:44 PM

32. That doesn't prove I'm wrong, I said the op omitted the information.

And that the PAC endorsed her not the group, how was I wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:49 PM

35. you certainly did attempt to imply the PAC dos not speak for the organization--

 

the only thing you have to hang your hat on is that the OP didn't use more of the article, even though a link was provided and that you didn't like the way the heading was worded...you attempt to walk it back is weak sauce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:51 PM

36. Nice try, SS. Unless you can link to my saying those words you're lying.

You just don't like the fact that the truth was pointed out.

Too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sheepshank (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:54 PM

38. That would be you. The PAC did endorse her, the group didn't.

Fair Wisconsin PAC today announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton in next week’s Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary.

In a press statement announcing the endorsement, the group’s political action committee called Clinton “a champion for LGBT equality.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1616610


You said:

you certainly did attempt to imply the PAC dos not speak for the organization--


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:57 PM

39. You implied much much more, and now walking it all back..weak n/t

 

and you were given example of how Bernie benefited from the same type of activity and yet you are mum.

It's so pathetic, your attempt to divert a positive narrative when it's to Hillary's benefit

I'll not further engage you, your badgering process is old and worn out and I think I've said enough. The readers can judge for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:59 PM

40. Maybe you should try addressing what I actually posted instead of using strawman arguments.

You're not very good at it and you just end up looking foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:47 PM

56. Scottie, come on, avoid the personal attacks

 

Clearly you were trying to diminish the endorsement by drawing a technicality, but perhaps the next time someone posts an endorsement for Bernie where it fails to distinguish between the nonprofit and its political arm, you'll be the first to pipe in and imply that Bernie's endorsement is less meaningful than it sounds. You ought to learn to let these things fade away, since I really don't think many people will back you up, and all you're doing is keeping this gay group endorsement of Hillary high up on the page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Reply #56)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:00 PM

62. No I clearly wasn't, I was posting the facts, how you feel about them is irrelevant.

And after looking at your transparency page should you really be lecturing anyone about personal attacks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:49 PM

60. The PAC does not represent the opinions of its members necessarily.

Keith Ellison is part of the CBC and endorses Bernie. Do you think he approves of the fact the CBC PAC endorses Hillary?! Heck no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PyaarRevolution (Reply #60)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:14 PM

63. I doubt many groups are unanimous one way or the others

 

The fact that the CBC PAC endorses Hillary means that the CBC endorses Hillary. If a majority endorsed Bernie, the PAC would have endorsed him.

Here's an example. Once again, the headline says the Michigan Nurse's Assoc. endorsed Bernie, but Scottie would be quick to point out that's incorrect. It was there political action committee. Are we to presume that means every one of their 11,000 members endorsed Bernie? Of course not, just a majority, perhaps a strong majority. But, thanks for allowing this thread to keep getting bounced up on the page!

http://minurses.org/news-and-events/p/openItem/5691

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:46 PM

34. DING DING DING....winner n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:39 PM

55. The c4 arm of nonprofits endorse all the time.

 

It's not just the PACS that engage is this activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:48 PM

10. just waiting for the inevitable "Stockholm syndrome" Bernsplanation nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:56 PM

16. And HRC endorsed Ron Kirk...

So much for LGBT groups representing my interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:59 PM

17. "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate"

Clinton's LGBT agenda

FW went on to praise Clinton for having “the most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate.” The group detailed her LGBT agenda, which includes:

Fighting for full federal equality for LGBT Americans. Clinton has said that she would work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, continue President Obama’s LGBT equality executive actions, and support efforts to clarify that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.”

Supporting LGBT youth, parents, and elders. Clinton has vowed to pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act to combat bullying.

Honoring the military service of LGBT people. Clinton said that as commander-in-chief she would upgrade the service records of LGBT veterans dismissed due to their sexual orientation and support efforts to allow transgender personnel to serve openly.

Securing affordable treatment for people living with HIV and AIDS. Clinton would work with governors to extend Medicaid coverage to people living with HIV, cap out-of pocket expenses for people with HIV/AIDS, and expand the utilization of HIV prevention medications, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Protecting and advancing transgender rights. Clinton would direct the federal government to improve its reporting of hate crimes and streamline identity documents that impose barriers on transgender Americans seeking official identification documents.

Promoting human rights of LGBT people around the world. Clinton would continue to ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world. She would increase the U.S. investment in the Global Equality Fund to advance the human rights of LGBT people around the world.



Fair Wisconsin is a fantastic organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:02 PM

18. She was there alright, standing in their way:





She did evolve finally but let's not whitewash her history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:07 PM

19. "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate"

That quoted text is on point and they explain why - in great detail.

Yeah, we could discuss the "evolution" of both candidates on SSM, but that seems odd. What are their policy plans for the future?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

But Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents. But the fact remains that, in the critical early days of the modern marriage equality movement, Sanders was neutral at best and hostile at worst.

...

Perhaps Sanders’ team used this states’ rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his vote—not his explanation of it—is what matters most. Still, if that’s the case, then Sanders should be honest about it. Sanders’ rhetoric leads listeners to believe that the congressman championed gay rights and rebuked Congress’ homophobia during the DOMA debate. But in his statements to the press at the time, Sanders defended states’ rights and made no mention of gay Americans’ dignity. His vote may have been brave. But it was hardly a full-throated cry for equality.

...

Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights.

...

Still, Sanders’ exaggeration of his marriage equality record is strange and unwise. If Sanders were honest about his evolution—and, yes, it was an evolution—then he could still brag about supporting marriage equality long before his chief primary rival. Instead, he has attempted to reframe his somewhat tepid support as vociferous and unabating. The LGBTQ community can surely forgive Sanders’ less-than-spotless record on gay rights—but that process can only begin once he’s honest about it. And in the Democratic candidates’ race to secure the gay community’s vote, honesty has been in surprisingly short supply.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:12 PM

20. Oh please, that's been debunked so many times, Bernie never opposed marriage equality.



The Slate blogger lied through his teeth, here's the transcript to that video:

I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other the state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.


He opposed allowing the feds to overturn states who had passed same sex legislation.

Bernie never needed to evolve because he never opposed marriage equality. He voted against DOMA and knew that same sex legislation wouldn't pass on Vermont so he said to wait, and he was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:15 PM

21. OK, I guess you didn't read what I posted. I didn't say that he opposed marriage equality

But he, too, evolved.

And HRC still has the "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:17 PM

22. He didn't "evolve" because he always supported marriage equality.

She didn't come around until 2013.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:33 PM

29. I took the poster all of 5 minutes to respond and probably took that long to

to his post. it is a quick one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:39 PM

30. "it"? Now Hillary supporters are using gender based slurs when they can't counter arguments?

One of your little friends got a timeout for doing that.

They're still flagged as a matter of fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:09 PM

42. I did not and do not know if you are male or female. "it' is gender neutral

term as I understand.

So you can cut with the slur comments that you directed at me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #42)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:12 PM

44. The correct pronoun is "they", "it" is used as an insult.

Don't play coy, you could have used my username.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:19 PM

51. Not playing coy. I gave you my reason. Simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:46 PM

33. Oh and "she" is quick because "she" knows how to do a search.

You really should stop embarrassing yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:11 PM

43. Then the compliments is yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:24 PM

24. so now you consider all GLBT groups to be untrustworthy because of HRC? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:30 PM

27. Great!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:04 PM

41. Color me unimpressed.

 

Just look at their minuscule budget, size of staff and political clout for their regions. Definitely not movers and shakers in the LGBTQ silo.

And also consider how infrequent their blog posts are updated. Doesn't appear to be a very active organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackCoffeeinNYC (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:13 PM

46. Do you know something about their 'political clout"??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:16 PM

49. Yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:12 PM

45. REC. and Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:14 PM

47. Maybe it was the Nancy Reagan comments that put her over the top

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:19 PM

52. I'm sure their members voted on it too right? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:30 PM

54. I can't find any account of whether members were consulted in any way. But this is interesting...

 

...

The only voice you seem to hear accounting for this endorsement, is that of its Chair, Nancy Nusbaum:

“Fair Wisconsin PAC is proud to endorse Secretary Hillary Clinton for President,” said Nancy Nusbaum, Chair of Fair Wisconsin PAC. “Secretary Clinton has a distinguished record as a champion for LGBT equality on both the domestic and international stage, as Secretary of State and U.S. Senator. We are confident that she is the best candidate to continue and expand on the legacy of the Obama Administration as the most pro-fairness in history.”

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.Iml?Article=367971



... but who exactly is Nancy Nusbaum, anyway?


Nusbaum advances in Cowles recall election
July 12, 2011

Former Brown County Executive Nancy Nusbaum trounced "fake Democrat" Otto Junkermann in Tuesday's 2nd Senate District Democratic primary.

Nusbaum now moves on to face Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) in the Aug. 9 recall election.

The primary offered Democrats a choice between a former Republican supported by Democratic leaders and a current Republican running as a Democrat at the behest of GOP leaders.

Nusbaum, the "official" Democratic candidate, was elected to the nonpartisan offices of De Pere mayor, where she served from 1988 to 1995, and Brown County executive, where she served from 1995 to 2003. She ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Republican in 1994, served in a Democratic attorney general's office from 2003 to 2005, and then lost another congressional election as a Democrat in 2006.

Nusbaum, 64, is a retired teacher.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/125460763.html






[img][/img]


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamneycare (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:51 PM

57. Yes, she used to be a Republican. So what? So was Elizabeth Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #57)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:31 PM

59. Voting Republican is one thing. But RUNNING FOR CONGRESS as a Republican...

 

... and then, years later, running as a Democrat after you lose...



... Then again, what am I saying -- I suppose it's no different than David Brock... [img][/img]

... and we all trust his sincere concern for progressive values... [img][/img]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:16 PM

64. Five of HRC's endorsements voted in favor of the Anti-LGBTQ bill in NC....n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread